CP - Dell vs HP server quotes
-
@DustinB3403 said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@Kelly said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
What is the point of duplicating the discussion here? I understand that there were some objections to the moderation approach, but since the OP is not part of the discussion, is this anything more than an academic exercise?
Academic purposes are the exact reason. To explain why a proposed solution needs to be adjusted, and ways that it can be improved in all directions.
Less hardware, less complexity, more stability, lower capitol expenditure and improved results.
(Also I've invited the OP to the topic immediately after posting, he's welcome to join or not)
Ok, that makes sense.
-
@Kelly said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
What is the point of duplicating the discussion here? I understand that there were some objections to the moderation approach, but since the OP is not part of the discussion, is this anything more than an academic exercise?
The OP said that he wanted and appreciated the broader information so the inability to have an open professional discussion where this originated requires either that the OP be left without the information that he feels is valid (this case) or is needed for completeness (many cases.) So in the interest of a professional level discussion (meaning as professionals we have obligations to honesty, transparency, growth, education, etc.) rather than a Q&A post (the storage and virtualization arenas on SW are not Q&A only like ServerFault) the discussion has to move elsewhere. The decision to remove the open discussion for storage and Virtualization topics on SW was confirmed with SW officially, so those topic groups have nowhere to have those discussions there, and people posting on SW think that they are posting for discussion and professional guidance, which is not allowed there. So even just in the interest of letting the OPs know that we still care and are still trying to help regardless of the mod's decisions to not allow that assistance in that community. Otherwise, it looks like those of us who want to help have abandoned that community, and it's important that posters on SW know that we are still around, still trying to help them.
And in many ways, this is better. Now SW can maintain the "here is the answer to what you asked, no need to dig deeper if you don't want your boss to see" or whatever. But if the OP wants a deep discussion into what they need, rather than what they asked, they can come here. It does make it easy for them to opt in, or opt out of the deeper discussion. Sadly, it leaves casual passers-by on SW not aware that there are potential issues, but casual readers on SW are caveat emptor as far as understanding that what they are seeing is intentionally filtered "advice."
-
@Kelly said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@DustinB3403 said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@Kelly said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
What is the point of duplicating the discussion here? I understand that there were some objections to the moderation approach, but since the OP is not part of the discussion, is this anything more than an academic exercise?
Academic purposes are the exact reason. To explain why a proposed solution needs to be adjusted, and ways that it can be improved in all directions.
Less hardware, less complexity, more stability, lower capitol expenditure and improved results.
(Also I've invited the OP to the topic immediately after posting, he's welcome to join or not)
Ok, that makes sense.
The "welcome to join" bit is actually pretty awesome. It's like 50/50 with these posts. Half of them are infuriated that we care and try to dig into their "needs" rather than just answering what they ask. But the other half are very thankful that we ask more, maybe help them think more broadly, maybe introduce ideas that they wouldn't have thought of, etc. This way, those that want to keep it shallow can stick to SW, those that want more deep can come here. So it might be a good system.
-
I'll just throw this out there. What about getting rid of the SANs completely and adding a 3rd host with either vSAN licensing or something like Starwind? I didn't see the post in SW and don't know if there was a business need, but I thought I'd mention this.
-
@NetworkNerd said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I'll just throw this out there. What about getting rid of the SANs completely and adding a 3rd host with either vSAN licensing or something like Starwind? I didn't see the post in SW and don't know if there was a business need, but I thought I'd mention this.
The full post is up top. Unless the OP jumps in here, we are pretty much exhausted on info.
-
@NetworkNerd said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I'll just throw this out there. What about getting rid of the SANs completely and adding a 3rd host with either vSAN licensing or something like Starwind? I didn't see the post in SW and don't know if there was a business need, but I thought I'd mention this.
That is another very valid option, just redirect the budget into a third host.
-
@NetworkNerd said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I'll just throw this out there. What about getting rid of the SANs completely and adding a 3rd host with either vSAN licensing or something like Starwind? I didn't see the post in SW and don't know if there was a business need, but I thought I'd mention this.
Why add a third host at all instead of just using two? If he doesn't have a third host with the SAN, there is no need for a third host without the SAN. So you could save the money, get high availability for free and have less equipment to fail. No need for the SAN, the switch or the third node.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I'll just throw this out there. What about getting rid of the SANs completely and adding a 3rd host with either vSAN licensing or something like Starwind? I didn't see the post in SW and don't know if there was a business need, but I thought I'd mention this.
Why add a third host at all instead of just using two? If he doesn't have a third host with the SAN, there is no need for a third host without the SAN. So you could save the money, get high availability for free and have less equipment to fail. No need for the SAN, the switch or the third node.
I was thinking vSAN required 3 hosts. I guess Starwind does not?
-
@NetworkNerd said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I was thinking vSAN required 3 hosts. I guess Starwind does not?
Correct, Starwind does not, only two nodes.
-
@NetworkNerd 2 Hosts Plus a Witness VM somewhere (how vSAN or HP StorVirtual operate).
-
@scottalanmiller said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I'll just throw this out there. What about getting rid of the SANs completely and adding a 3rd host with either vSAN licensing or something like Starwind? I didn't see the post in SW and don't know if there was a business need, but I thought I'd mention this.
Why add a third host at all instead of just using two? If he doesn't have a third host with the SAN, there is no need for a third host without the SAN. So you could save the money, get high availability for free and have less equipment to fail. No need for the SAN, the switch or the third node.
What about the witness host?
-
@John-Nicholson said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd 2 Hosts Plus a Witness VM somewhere (how vSAN or HP StorVirtual operate).
Ok he beat me to it... where would this witness VM run? Let's assume these servers are the only servers in the environment.
-
@Dashrender said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@John-Nicholson said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd 2 Hosts Plus a Witness VM somewhere (how vSAN or HP StorVirtual operate).
Ok he beat me to it... where would this witness VM run? Let's assume these servers are the only servers in the environment.
You could run it on VirtualBox if you really had to.
-
@Dashrender said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@John-Nicholson said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd 2 Hosts Plus a Witness VM somewhere (how vSAN or HP StorVirtual operate).
Ok he beat me to it... where would this witness VM run? Let's assume these servers are the only servers in the environment.
No witness node required for any of the major players except for VSAN.
-
@John-Nicholson said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd 2 Hosts Plus a Witness VM somewhere (how vSAN or HP StorVirtual operate).
Yes, a VM somewhere else is the best option. But often none is "required." But definitely recommended. But certainly can be a much "lower" tier box.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@John-Nicholson said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd 2 Hosts Plus a Witness VM somewhere (how vSAN or HP StorVirtual operate).
Yes, a VM somewhere else is the best option. But often none is "required." But definitely recommended. But certainly can be a much "lower" tier box.
Assuming that you have at least a little local storage in each host, Run the Witness in a VM on LOCAL STORAGE and have it replicated between the two hosts?
Edit:
We had to have this Witness server in order for the HP / LeftHand SAN to have automatic failover capabilities.
-
@scottalanmiller - Otherwise, it looks like those of us who want to help have abandoned that community,
Understatement - Again!
-
@pchiodo said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@scottalanmiller - Otherwise, it looks like those of us who want to help have abandoned that community,
Understatement - Again!
Sad, but true.
-
@DustinB3403 said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I've received two quotes for new server hardware - one from our local reseller and one directly from Dell. As far as I can tell, the two quotes are identical spec-wise but the local reseller is almost $12k more expensive. Here are the two quotes:
Quote from Dell:
2x Dell PowerEdge R430 servers $6,665.60- 2x Xeon E5-2630 v3 CPUs
- 2x 32 GB RDIMM
- Diskless configuration
1x Dell SCv2020 iSCSI SAN $10,303.26 - 14x Dell 1.2 TB SAS 12GB, 10k, 2.5" HD
1x Dell N2048 gigabit switch $1,693.49
TOTAL: $18,662.35
HP Quote from local reseller:
2x HP ProLiant DL360 servers $7,266.00- 2x Xeon E5-2630 v3 CPUs
- 64 GB RAM (unknown configuration)
- Diskless configuration
1x HP MSA 2040 SAN $20,932.00 - 14x HP MSA 1.2 TB 10K SAS 2.5in drives
- includes $5,850 in labor so actual price
is only $15,082
1x Cisco Catalyst 2960-X gigabit switch $2,320.00
TOTAL: $30,518.00
Difference: $11,855.65
Is there any reason why I should choose the HP solution over the Dell solution? I will be running vSphere 6 on these servers. I'm not familiar with managing either server line so either way I'll be learning new management tools. When it comes to support I think I trust my local reseller more than Dell but $12k extra is hard to stomach just for that.
[Edit: CP Code M.]
Support is Dell-Pro-Support either you're bbuying direct from Dell. from VAR. MSP and system integrators or OEMs like Nutanix, SimpliVity or StarWind (grin) add some extra support on top because they own the whole thing. Every hardware issue still ends with DPS unless VAR/SI/OEM will ship a replacement part and own engineer BEFORE Dell will handle that. But... with 4 hours SLA I don't think you need more (for big $$$).
-
@scottalanmiller said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@Kelly said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
What is the point of duplicating the discussion here? I understand that there were some objections to the moderation approach, but since the OP is not part of the discussion, is this anything more than an academic exercise?
The OP said that he wanted and appreciated the broader information so the inability to have an open professional discussion where this originated requires either that the OP be left without the information that he feels is valid (this case) or is needed for completeness (many cases.) So in the interest of a professional level discussion (meaning as professionals we have obligations to honesty, transparency, growth, education, etc.) rather than a Q&A post (the storage and virtualization arenas on SW are not Q&A only like ServerFault) the discussion has to move elsewhere. The decision to remove the open discussion for storage and Virtualization topics on SW was confirmed with SW officially, so those topic groups have nowhere to have those discussions there, and people posting on SW think that they are posting for discussion and professional guidance, which is not allowed there. So even just in the interest of letting the OPs know that we still care and are still trying to help regardless of the mod's decisions to not allow that assistance in that community. Otherwise, it looks like those of us who want to help have abandoned that community, and it's important that posters on SW know that we are still around, still trying to help them.
And in many ways, this is better. Now SW can maintain the "here is the answer to what you asked, no need to dig deeper if you don't want your boss to see" or whatever. But if the OP wants a deep discussion into what they need, rather than what they asked, they can come here. It does make it easy for them to opt in, or opt out of the deeper discussion. Sadly, it leaves casual passers-by on SW not aware that there are potential issues, but casual readers on SW are caveat emptor as far as understanding that what they are seeing is intentionally filtered "advice."
A lot of good quality people (sorry if it sounds offensive but I hope you know what I mean) had indeed either left entirely or spend MUCH LESS time on a SpiceWorks these days. But i thin it's what happens to all the good forums all the time - people migrate from one to another and... It's a natural process
